|
The Circuit Court for Hanover County, Virginia recently invalidated
a mechanic’s lien filed by a contractor for costs incurred
in preparing for the construction of a steel building
where none of the contractor’s materials or labor actually
reached the building site or were incorporated in the structure.
In Dallan Construction, Inc. v. Super Structures General Contractors,
Inc., Hanover County Circuit Court, Case Number
CL08000473-00 (January 30, 2009), Dallan Construction, Inc.
(“Dallan”) filed a petition to invalidate the mechanic’s lien
filed by Super Structures General Contractors, Inc. (“Super
Structures”). Super Structures had entered into an agreement
with Dallan for the construction of a steel building and, in accordance
with the agreement, commenced preparatory work on
the project. Before Super Structures began the actual construction
of the project, Dallan cancelled its contract with Super
Structures. While Super Structures had commenced the fabrication
of steel components for use in the planned building project,
none of its “means, methods, or products” had actually
reached the building site at the time of termination. Thus, Dallan
argued that Super Structures’ lien was invalid because it
had not performed any labor or furnished materials to the property
subject to the lien.
The court first observed that Virginia Code § 43-3 could be
applied to the factual circumstances of this case because Super
Structures performed labor or furnished materials for the construction
of a building to be permanently annexed to the free-
|
hold, much like an architect or engineer’s efforts. Further, the
labor and materials produced by Super Structures corresponded
with Super Structures’ contractual obligations. The
court noted, however, that the Supreme Court of Virginia has
uniformly held against the imposition of a mechanic’s lien
where the labor or materials claimed in a mechanic’s lien
never actually reach the burdened property.
Super Structures claimed that it satisfied the “performing labor”
requirement of Virginia Code § 43-3 through its preparation
for fabrication of steel components to be used in the
planned building project and was, therefore, entitled to lien
the property. The Court rejected this argument, finding that,
since Super Structures’ fabricated steel never reached the
building site, it could not base its lien on such work.
Next, Super Structures asserted that it was entitled to a lien by
virtue of the planning and design work it performed. Though
the court acknowledged that the mechanic’s lien statute permits
a claimant to lien for design work performed on a project,
the court concluded that such lien rights must be conditioned
upon the design efforts specifically enhancing the value
of the burdened property. As Super Structures’ planning and
design work was never incorporated or used in the building
actually erected on the property, such design efforts could not
be the foundation of a valid mechanic’s lien.
continued on page 3
|
